Remember when Donald Trump said he forgave the loan he made to his presidential campaign? That hasn’t happened yet, NBC News reported on Thursday. Apparently, the Federal Election Commission said it had no evidence the candidate followed through on his promise.

In an interview published on June 24, Trump told NBC’s Lester Holt that he “already forgave” the loan he’d issued to his own campaign.

“Well, you always do it as loans, and then you terminate the loan,” later clarifying, “I’ve already terminated it.”

That was from last Thursday, June 23. But an FEC employee recently told NBC the Trump campaign still treated the loan as a loan, and not a gift as of the last filing on June 20. There hasn’t been any new filed since then. As things stand, Trump can legally use campaign donations to pay himself.

Hicks recently told NBC the loan-forgiving paperwork will be “filed with the next regularly scheduled FEC report.” The next filing deadline is July 20. The FEC’s records state that as of May 31, Trump had loaned about $45.7 million to his campaign. This made over 70% of total receipts.

Brando said...Is that actually true? Because I was under the impression the costs of presidential travel for campaigns had to be paid for by the campaigns.

From what I recall from previous elections where a sitting president was running for reelection, the campaign is charged something like the price of a first class ticket for the trip. It reportedly costs around $200K an hour to operate AF1 but that's far from the full cost of a presidential trip. For one thing, another large transport plane (C-5 or C-17) is used to carry the presidential limo or helicopter. There's also the costs of the Secret Service advance team, extra police coverage, etc. Hillary is getting a (probably free) ride on AF1 or at most will be charged the price of a first class ticket to ride along on a very expensive trip. But then, she's well used to getting the taxpayers to pay for whatever she wants.

"In an interview published on June 24... tweet from Wall Street Journal.. from last Thursday, June 23. But an FEC employee... as of the last filing on June 20..."

The loans aren't forgiven through FEC filings. FEC filings report what's happened within some particular period. So I'm not seeing evidence that Trump lied to Holt.

I think the key here is that if Trump wants to raise money from people, they need to believe their money isn't going straight to him, rather than to the campaign. So he's got to offer them some proof ... or restrict himself to donors who, for some reason don't care that much... or — this is worse! — want to give money straight to Trump. Seems bribe-y, no?

Hey Unknown who fucking cares if it's true or not, literally or not, in this world or any other? The truth is what our elites tell us to believe. The law is just words written by dead white men unapplicable to elites such as Hilary or Trump. He's one of them, you should know. There is no need to stick to the facts when running a campaign, an investigation or a government.

But don't worry, right wing gangster government couldn't hurt you any more than this left wing gangster government does. Is your life any worse off for a tweet from a man you don't know personally?

"Winger", by the way, back in the day, oh, about forty years ago, was a word devised to connote someone on the fringe, politically. A left-winger was a communist, and a right-winger was a barefoot-and-pregnant guy.

The word, "winger", now gets thrown about as though it means anyone left or right of center.

I'd be grumpier if I actually expected an indictment. And at this point I have no stake in the general election anyway, so it doesn't really matter. It's just a sign that if you're important enough, you can do things like this and not only have it not be a career ender, but you can still be on the fast track to the highest political office in the country.

I propose: The President gets a travel budget that has to live the year. The travel budget is known, but we don't necessarily know how much each costs.If he wants extra at the end of the year, he must ask Congress for it, publicly.

What do you think? We need some controls on presidential travel, for a lot of reasons.

Though I note in some ways, politically this is excellent news for Republicans. If Hillary were indicted, that might have been the excuse the Dems needed to put Biden in her place (though even then, maybe not) and now more people will be motivated to turn out against her--this failure to indict is feeding the idea that the Clintons are above the law and Obama's team covers for her.

Besides, the bigger issue, politically, is not the legality of what she did, but rather the slimy and untrustworthy way she set up a private server and repeatedly lied about it after. Far as I can tell there is no possible explanation for the server that looks good for her. The political damage has already been done, even though she caught a break from the FBI.

Like donors to the Clinton Foundation who got special favors from the State Department?

If Trump were to keep the loan, he would, at best, end up with the same amount of money he had before but this is bribe-y.

Clinton profited from donations. The donors just happened to end up among the specially favored when it came to getting State approval for what they wanted. It wasn't bribes, it was just coincidences. A lot of them.

There is no way they could keep up. Taxpayers haven't paid for a single bomber or war since 1947.

The government uses the power of the "press" to print more money as it sees fit.

22 trillion in debt, and 122 Trillion in IOU's.

When you pay your taxes, you are paying interest on the debt.

Your numbers are way off. In fiscal year 2015, the federal government collected $3.25 trillion dollars in revenue. The sad fact that they spent several hundred billion more than that is what contributes to the ever increasing federal debt. The interest on the debt is about $200 billion a year due to low interest rates. Low interest rates are bad for savers and great for debtors. The US government is be biggest debtor of all which is why they're artificially keeping the interest rates as close to 0% as possible. Even letting the rate rise by a small amount will seriously increase the cost of servicing the debt.

There is a perception the US government is "keeping interest rates low" - this is not accurate. The US government is declaring what they'll charge banks to lend them money, which then falls into a cascade of how much banks charge commercial and consumer borrowers.

US government debt is at a low interest rate because it continues to be - correctly so as far as I can tell - the LEAST risky bond opportunity and therefore offers the lowest yield within that class of bond AND for the amount of money being parked in those classes of bonds (both things together are important).

So, for example, there may be another type of sovereign debt-bond that is less risky. Let's imagine for a second that's Canada. But they only be selling $10 billion such bonds, so it's gone in a heartbeat. The US, by comparison, is offering huge sums of bonds in a "safe haven" for hundreds of billions each year.

If the EU had it's shit together, and was issuing lots of debt, our interest rates would be sky high. But it's not.

There's something to be said about the President flying a political candidate to a rally on the day the FBI declares that said candidate violated rules surrounding classified informations and should have faced security and administrative ramifications, were grossly reckless with national security matters, and in the absolute best light possible they were borderline criminal.

I've literally heard people say the Obama admin has been scandal-less. It's unbelievable that perception exists.

Hillary! not only flew to North Carolina aboard Air Force One, her podium is adorned with the Presidential Seal. Why don't we just declare Hillary! our next President. Elections like the rule of law are for the little people.

Mark Knoller has been Tweeting about this question all day. One Tweet says,"The WH has repeatedly refused CBS News requests for an itemized accounting of the costs of presidential travel & reimbursements." So who knows?

He has also Tweeted about the use of the Presidential Seal on the lectern and her use of the lectern. Knoller says the WH has said, in the past, the Presidential Seal isn't displayed at campaign events.

"Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before bringing charges. There are obvious considerations, like the strength of the evidence, especially regarding intent. Responsible decisions also consider the context of a person’s actions, and how similar situations have been handled in the past."

Here is the same paragraph from Paddy O's link with the words, "because she is exempt from laws that apply to other people" in the transcript.

“Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case against Secretary Clinton, because she is exempt from the laws that apply to all other Americans,” Comey announced, adding that it didn’t really matter that she has been lying so profusely about all of these things, as she is immune to justice.

Your site is a Christian based site? They shouldn't lie, now should they?

You obviously haven't been hanging around here very long if you think Paddy doesn't know it's satire. I'm just as sure there are plenty of people here who realise it was satire.

Not like there aren't egregious amounts of propaganda being spewed from sites that purport to say all kinds "true" crap about the Donald. They misquote, selectively quote, embellish, editorialize yada, and voila, a meme is born, it gross legs and becomes gospel. Both. Parties. Do. It.